Bottom post of the previous page:
This makes sense to me, lets not lose our heads and composure over a note.feem wrote:My thoughts on this:
1) Absent of any existing behavior patterns, in the case of an overreaction that didn't lead to a player death, with no mitigating circumstances, in which recompense could easily be achieved by the wronged player (i.e. aggressor gets dunked), I think that:
a) A note may be unnecessary, as you can just tell the player not to be so hasty next time
b) The issue can be resolved ICly by retaliating with force
2) While the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal,' it is not 'nonlethal.' This is an important distinction.
3) In situations where security is the aggressor, as has been mentioned, action taken by the victim to retaliate against the security asset will almost inevitably end in pain for the victim. This is one of the reasons that there are precedents regarding use of force by security. As above, the detective's revolver is 'less than lethal' but not 'nonlethal.'
4) Wetting floors when there was both a reasonable explanation for why they were wetted (cleaning was being performed) and actions were taken to remediate the impact of that wetting (signs were placed) is not 'acting like an antag.'
5) 'Act like an antag, get treated like one' therefore does not apply.
6) The player in question, while not having a substantial history of this particular behavior, has been noted for other overreactions and behavior issues in the past.
7) Given the above, in my opinion, while a note may not have been strictly necessary (as a talking-to may have sufficed), and while ideally this could have been resolved ICly, there existed the following:
a) An onus on the security player not to react with more-than-nonlethal force to non-aggressive acts
b) An overreaction born out of annoyance by the security player with immediate aggressive escalation to more-than-nonlethal force
c) An IC and OOC disincentive for the victim to respond 'appropriately' by retaliating against the aggressor, in that if he did respond he would almost certainly have been killed
d) A pre-existing set of conditions in the case of the security player (note history) which indicate that the player has had overreactions to other situations in the past
e) No current documented warning to the security player that overreaction as a security player when other options are available is viewed more harshly than, say, a greytider who only has a toolbox
Therefore .:
A) I DO support the warning of the security player for overreaction as a security officer to a non-aggressive act
B) I DO support this note as a record of behavior for which the player was warned
C) I DO NOT support universal noting or 'black marks on the record' for any security player who 'overreacts' to a situation, as each situation is different
D) I DO NOT support explicit and arbitrary numerical limits on what's considered an adminhelp-worthy event, such as 'he only did 50 points of damage, IC issue,' as each situation is different
E) I DO NOT support immediate escalation by a given victim player to adminhelps in the circumstance of being whacked less-than-lethally for doing something stupid
F) I DO support the victim player in this instance submitting an adminhelp, as their circumstance was being whacked less-than-lethally for doing their job as described on the tin
G) I DO support the victim player and administrator in feeling that this issue was worthy of OOC attention, as IC retaliation would almost inevitably have led to the victim player being killed outright for 'acting like an antag'
Slippery slope arguments are stupid as hell in this case. This is an excellent example of _what an admin is supposed to do in this kind of situation_, which is investigate the issue at hand, apply their interpretation of the rules and understanding of the events which took place, enumerate the likelihood that the player is going to engage in the behavior again, determine whether or not the behavior actually was resolvable ICly, guide the players in question to understand how to resolve it more effectively in the future, and make remarks upon what was done so that the next administrator who views an issue involving the player in question can understand the context in which the next issue occurred and the behavior patterns present.
This isn't a hard and fast 'ANY SECURITY OFFICER WHO USES THEIR WEAPON IS BANNED' situation, this isn't a hard and fast 'ANYONE WHO IS 'JUST DOING THEIR JOB' IS EXEMPT FROM IC RETALIATION,' this is one fucking situation with some pretty fucking obvious facts that I don't feel should be nearly as much of an argument as it is.
It's a note for a player who did a stupid thing because they were annoyed.
The note's been clarified, the player knows to be more careful next time, the admin knows to be more specific in the next note, nobody's banned, what's left to be said?
